Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

Aw, how cute. They think they can just up and start their own journal and get taken seriously. It's reminds me of a small child putting up a lemonade stand, getting five dollars and calling him/herself a businessman. The only part that's not cute is that these are adults that are playing pretend.

"In particular, we find that an observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention eliminates the distant starlight problem by reducing radially inward-directed light travel-time in the reference frame of the observer to zero."

So light travels infinitely fast if it's heading towards the observer, but at only c/2 if it's heading away. Obvious really. I don't know how Einstein could have missed it.

> from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
> that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.

Look, peer reviewed science has seen damn many revolutions. Just look at physics: the math gets more accurate, the theories and models become more complex. And they don't even look much like the previous iteration.

Are you ready for research that can challenge some pretty fundamental assumptions that you have? In other words, are you ready for some new information?

If you're just "demonstrating the validity" of the "framework", you're not going to get too far when (I was about to say "if", but, ahem, there's this recent research I've heard of that kind of guarantees that questions will be raised) the evidence contradicts it.

"this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research"

Translation - If we use these same words that scientists use, then we will be taken just as seriously as they are..regardless of wether we use the scientific method or not.

"cutting-edge"

I only hear creationists using this slogan so much. Also, how can something be "cutting edge" when the whole point is to do everything possible to prove a 2000 year old myth is correct and everything else is "of da debil".

Where is that "cutting edge" world wide proof of that global flood you mention? There should be MASSIVE amounts of evidence in MANY feilds across the board if that REALLY happened..hey, not a single bit of evidence. Merely local floods here and there, as what was expected of people who reason and use common sense.

How about those "kinds"? When are you fools going to come to a concensus on that one huh? What "kind" is a platypus? How about the differences of "kinds" between whales and hippos? What "kind" is a giraffe? How about the differences of "kind" between Ferrets and Weasels? Are ferrets the "weasel" kind or the "ferret" kind? If so then why call Ferrets ferrets? Why not just call them weasels, since they are the same "kind"? Same with the difference between lions and domestic cats. How about you do some research on basic deffinitions first, because they seem VERY fuzzy to me...

...get back to me on the other stuff AFTER you clear up this whole "kind" definition process...mmmkay.

I just went over to the site and have been mucking around a little bit. I'm thinking of writing an obviously made up paper that essentially concurs with their thesis just to see if they'd publish it. Then, when they do, I'd reveal the scam they really are. Who's with me?

As long as you presuppose the Young Earth creation model then nothing you do can be labelled scientific research. Publish all you like in your pet journal, you will remain to the scientific community at large nowt but a laughing stock.

See kids, this is what happens when you can't get your bullshit pseudoscientific garbage reviewed favourably by real scientific bodies. You invent your own unscientific review body and claim it gives you validity.
Just another way of Lying For Jesus.

Oh I would, I'd LOVE to... but I'm studying to be a Psychologist and...we kind of frown on this sort of thing, even if it's an awesome scam, I don't want my name anywhere near their...craziness, people might not get the joke.

"Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). ...this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."